I can't tell you how much these "experiments" annoy me---poorly designed, execution is often frought with danger for the actors, plus there are ethical questions, sometimes serious ones, involved in essentially forceing unwilling people just going about their lives, to participate in your "study."

Judgeing by the level of emotions shown, this was very stressful for the folks involved.....that somebody just wanting to sell air time could inflict such stress on a private citizen is distasteful to me.

In any case the very base of the "study" is seriously flawed--its simply done as a justification of the producers preconceived bias.....the more so when surprise is expressed about the outcome......the underlaying assumption of people the USA being grassroots bigots is so widespread that to even assume the opposite is largely impossible--at least for the folks that ran the study

The whole Islamophobia thing is a politically motivated canard.......the plain fact of the matter is that large groups of fanatics are using religion to motivate their followers to commit acts of horrific violence--then justifying said acts by again using religion....beheading people, blowing up weddings, calling for the utter destruction of entire nations/races, so called honor killings---guy in the States killed both his daughters for wanting to date, run their own lives etc, brutal treatment of women, "childrens" TV shows that idolize suicide murderers, women being raped in Australia and the Netherlands because they were not "properly" covered.......but according to the TV see the real problem is some old bigot whom has problems with Islam.

Also interesting that despite the fact that many people stood up for the actress--even walked out in protest---even got in the other actors face for his discrimination---they still focused on claims of discrimnation as the "lead" and body of the story.
IMO the real conclusions of the study--of what they showed--is that the bigots seem to be far outnumbered by decent people willing to stand up for others---which is in contrast to the cental theme of the piece and the claims of the person whom help them design the test BTW.

People/bystanders not getting involved is nothing new and has nothing to do with Islamaphobia----its a non-action which has been known about and studied for many years----people have been murdered while folks just stood around.
Nobody should be surprised esp guy running things---he has personally witnessed people being "robbed" and "assaulted" with nobody doing anything either

I'm surprised no one hauled the guy over the counter and gave him an education.

Interesting how people react. I know you will not carry because as you put it you are a brown guy. You acknowledged to me that in the public eye and the judicial system you expect to be treated differently.

It's not supossed to be that way, but in life we encounter ideals and then there's the hard cold reality of life.

CXT makes a great point about how schitty the approach these shows employ. And yes the world is full of fine folks who will be offended by this. Then most of them just turn their backs and let you live it.

This could spin off into all kind of intellectual drivel, and that is sad. It would be a far better world if people were just moved to judge one another as individuals rather than along religous or ethnic lines.

Being a realist my friend I'm sure you know that little will change. Look how we treated our citizens of japanese decent in the last war. We have not progressed have we.

Look, this wasn't an experiment. This was just some "investigative journalism," and they do this kind of stuff day in, day out with different subjects, such as dishonest car repairmen, and its a relative of the "to catch a predator" theme, a sort of infotainment. So why are people upset about the format today? Apparently because people think this was a discriminatory attack on middle america:

"......the underlaying assumption of people the USA being grassroots bigots is so widespread that to even assume the opposite is largely impossible--at least for the folks that ran the study."

The commentary is perfectly clear: 13 stood up for her, 6 stood up for the clerk, 22 did nothing. That doesn't imply that they think americans are uniform bigots. It implies that they tallied the responses of the people who happened to come in. What they should have done is commented on the tendency of people in stressful situations to look to others and mimic their response, and if those others are doing nothing, all do. This response is well documented in social psychology in which people will say that green is blue, or sit in a room as it fills with smoke, or ignore a person in need if others are doing the same. This "sheeple" tendency has nothing to do with islam and more to do with a lack of practiced response. Other than that omission I fail to see what the bias was. Sensationalist sure, biased I don't see.

"Also interesting that despite the fact that many people stood up for the actress--even walked out in protest---even got in the other actors face for his discrimination---they still focused on claims of discrimnation as the "lead" and body of the story."

Gosh. Well, if 1/3 of the people who react are prejudiced instead of supportive, that is a problem to me. What kind of ratio do we have to see before we're allowed to claim prejudice is a problem in the US? More than half, maybe? What sense does that make? If a muslim walking around finds that a third of the reactions to her are hateful, that really screws up her life, and I wouldn't expect a news reporter to trumpet the fact that 2/3 of the reactions were positive. What if they did a report on HIV and reported the horrible news that 1/3 of parts of Africa was HIV infected (they are)? Would you jump on them for not being excited about the 2/3 uninfected? Of course not.

This is an overreaction to a fair reporting of the informal findings. The fact that negative aspects of islam, or muslim culture (related and separate) aren't adequately covered in someone's view isn't Quinones' personal responsibility.

Then if we are more or less in agreement that its as you put it essentially "infotainment" and as I put it really just to "sell air time" then its conclusions really should not be trusted yes???????

I personally would hesitate to put this in the same catagory of " investigative jounalism" as say Watergate or other serious works.

Also not sure that setting up a artifical situation, inventing and scripting a situtaion that is as charged as one can possibly make it, using paid professional, actors to "sell" it counts as either "fair reporting" or "investigative journalism."
Both IMO rather strongly imply accurate reporting of the facts of an actual situation.....not essentially putting on a play and "reporting" on peoples reactions to it.
People sometimes get emotional over "Death of a Salesmen" and its probably pretty accurate in terms of the lives of some salespeople and their families.........but unless your Jason Blair (???) few people would call writing a story about it as if it were real.... "reporting."

I was pretty clear at what was "upsetting" me....honestly never thought of it as a "discrimnatory attack on middle America" just thought it was sloppy sensationalism......but now that you mention it....could be.

I was also pretty clear that one of the big things that was bugging me was the emotional/mental stress that people just going about their daily lives were forced to suffer.
IMO its arguable abusive, its why there are rules that legit studies are required to follow.
I mean here we have grown men that can't keep from crying and one girl was so upset/hysterical she could not even speak---these people were not volunteers in some study--they were just normal people going about their daily lives--until they had the misfortune to wander into John Quinones street theater.
And if we can excuse that level of abuse...where does the line get drawn?

(not too long ago, on this very forum, people seriously posited that putting hardened terrorists thu that kind (ballpark) of emotional/mental stress was tantmount to illegal torture----torture that might cause long term harms.)

The "bias" is in how they framed the story--the results clearly surprised them---yet they still spun the story in line with its orignal premise....even when the results did not arguably justify doing so.

Nope, that roughly 3xs or more than twice (6 people to 18 or 6-13) as many people stood up for the lady as opposed to those that agreed with the clerk should indicate that even by such rough numbers she should be getting many more postive experiences as negative.
Which in no way invalidates the negative but it should put it better perspective.I'd like to have a day where 13-18 total strangers got so mad at how badly I was being treated that they yelled at the people doing it and stormed out of the business yelling that they lost a customer for life.
You can and should be pissed at bigoted idiots being bigoted idiots....but that should not blind you to the much larger groups of people standing up for you.If one can't see that, recognize it, and take some comfort in it, have some well justified hope over it...then they are just as big a pessimist as I'm oft accused of being.

Also spinning 20 some people that did nothing as being indicative of bias---or not explaining---as you took the time to do--that people doing nothing is the norm just makes it worse.

Besides, like I said, spinning the real problem as some old bigot when fathers are killing their kids because they want to have the rights that living in a free country provide would seem to be a larger more serious issue.
Cab drivers refusing to pick up blind people because their seeing eye dogs are "unclean" would seem to me to be a story with a bit more serious implications.
Clerks refuseing to handle pork products or beer/wine/etc would seem to me to be just as serious.
Cab drivers refuseing to pick people up because they are carrying wine would seem to be just as serious to me.

You find bigotry everywhere--and in many forms.....and context tends to count.

And I respectfully disagree, I think John Quinones, if he lays any claim to being objective that is---needs to report more than one side of an issue.....people can't logically lambast Fox News for not being "fair and balanced" while giving John Quinones a pass.
At least Bill O'Reilly puts people on his segements that hold opposite views----Quinones didn't even take that teeny tiny little step.
Not saying its right...just pointing out that if the argumement becomes essentially "its not his responsibilty" then what does that say about jounalism?

I'm surprised no one hauled the guy over the counter and gave him an education.

Interesting how people react. I know you will not carry because as you put it you are a brown guy. You acknowledged to me that in the public eye and the judicial system you expect to be treated differently.

It's not supossed to be that way, but in life we encounter ideals and then there's the hard cold reality of life.

CXT makes a great point about how schitty the approach these shows employ. And yes the world is full of fine folks who will be offended by this. Then most of them just turn their backs and let you live it.

This could spin off into all kind of intellectual drivel, and that is sad. It would be a far better world if people were just moved to judge one another as individuals rather than along religous or ethnic lines.

Being a realist my friend I'm sure you know that little will change. Look how we treated our citizens of japanese decent in the last war. We have not progressed have we.

Some may get it, some never will. We are who we are.

I don't know what to think.

I was actually a bit optimistic, it seems more people got pissed off rather then hate. I expected it to be 50/50, based on opinions ive seen on the internet.

CXT is right that people standing around doing nothing is not exactly unique to this situation. It's human nature. Hell have we not discussed this in terms of self-defense?

And yes, the show ***** in it's approach. But thats todays media unfortunately, sensationalist. It's not about the info but getting attention, so im not exactly surprised.

Quote:

The whole Islamophobia thing is a politically motivated canard.......the plain fact of the matter is that large groups of fanatics are using religion to motivate their followers to commit acts of horrific violence--then justifying said acts by again using religion....beheading people, blowing up weddings, calling for the utter destruction of entire nations/races, so called honor killings---guy in the States killed both his daughters for wanting to date, run their own lives etc, brutal treatment of women, "childrens" TV shows that idolize suicide murderers, women being raped in Australia and the Netherlands because they were not "properly" covered.......but according to the TV see the real problem is some old bigot whom has problems with Islam. Rolling Eyes

Lots of communists have done bad things, but i have met some hardcore communists. THough i think their views are foolish, most are good people. If anyone didn't let them eat or by food at a diner or shop, i would be pretty pissed. Hell look at what Joseph Raymond McCarthy did. Even if some of those people were really communists, how many really were guilty of treason?

Don't have to love the lot, but you should stand up for their rights. Hell some are fighting for their country.

"I personally would hesitate to put this in the same catagory of " investigative jounalism" as say Watergate or other serious works."

I wouldn't either. Luckily no one said they would. Kind of a strawman.

"I was also pretty clear that one of the big things that was bugging me was the emotional/mental stress that people just going about their daily lives were forced to suffer."

If it's so stressful to people that discrimination exists and they might have to see it, what do you propose we do to get everyone through an average day? Sometimes I see a car crash on the road or hear a sad story on Oprah and that can be upsetting. Life goes on. If these people wanted to they could have just walked away; no one required them to stay and argue. Perhaps not super classy of the reporters but all that unsuspecting participants were exposed to was a situation in which someone was verbally mistreated. I think we can guess that's a survivable stress.

"not too long ago, on this very forum, people seriously posited that putting hardened terrorists thu that kind (ballpark) of emotional/mental stress was tantmount to illegal torture----torture that might cause long term harms."

No. Not even remotely. There was a clear definition of torture being the causing of severe injury or pain/mental anguish on par with that. A simulated execution or sexual humiliation selected based on your culture and religious taboos is stressful. Seeing a clerk refuse a muffin or whatever he was selling there is not "ballpark." For shame.

"The "bias" is in how they framed the story--the results clearly surprised them---yet they still spun the story in line with its orignal premise....even when the results did not arguably justify doing so."

Look, I'm sorry it bugged you. But if they did a story on percent of homes with minefields in the yard, and they found a third of homes had them, THAT is the story. NOT the 2/3 free of mines. Deal with it. Ask ANYONE who's actually faced discrimination if 1/3 disturbing prejudice is a cause for celebration, and you'll hear that it's generally not, or if they are able to make lemonade with the situation, it might only be in the context of a documented marked improvement and only with the caveat that it's still unacceptable.

"Besides, like I said, spinning the real problem as some old bigot when fathers are killing their kids because they want to have the rights that living in a free country provide would seem to be a larger more serious issue."

Ok. Interesting. These are different stories. You don't stop reporting on antimuslim attitudes when there are some muslims who misbehave. Substitute "black" for "muslim" in that sentance and maybe you'd see why. Oh, and you can bet your butt those killings are being covered too. Quinones can't solve every problem or deal with every related issue in his 10 minutes.

"And I respectfully disagree, I think John Quinones, if he lays any claim to being objective that is---needs to report more than one side of an issue.....people can't logically lambast Fox News for not being "fair and balanced" while giving John Quinones a pass."

So, he should be fair and balanced by.... what, reporting the results of the scenario with crystal clarity? Wait, he did that. It's a news show. News isn't supposed to be a series of pictures of nature and little girls eating icecream cones in the park. Good news (not saying this was good news, but...) highlights problems for society to confront. It can also highlight victories and progress, but there is nothing wrong with identifying real, nasty prejudice in a large fraction of people on the street and taking issue with that.

Was it not you that used the term "investigative journalism" in reference/context to the John Q's piece?

I find putting people thu a psych experiment without their knowlege and consent to be unethical---there are after all rules about such things for a reason--and as far as "people could have just walked away"-- IMO, their abilty to "walk away" has nothing to do with the ethics of springing it on them in the first place.

Sorry nope, there was little "clear difference" when it comes to mental/emotional damage--it remained undefined as to just what counted and more specifically just what would be enough trauma to cause long term damage---I would suggest that making grown men cry and making young women so hysterical that they can't speak might just count as trauma with at least potential long term effects....or maybe not, point being we never really got a handle on where the line was drawn......and now that I'm thinking of it, there was more discussion on putting hardened terrorist thu mental/emotional stress than John Q putting average people thu such a wringer--they might not have been put thu as much--although measueing another persons emotional pain is kinda hard to measure--but they certainly are not as hardened either.

Plus, what if someone that had actually had this happen to them walked into the street theater?
Could kick off some serious PTSD..at least in theory...which is another reason why legit experiments have rules.

As I mention, repeatadly, discrimination is unacceptable, however there is a serious and substantive difference between systemic discrimantion and a minority of people being bigots---you'll pretty much always have a minority of bigoted idiots about/over something.But when most people--even in the street theater, are not such bigots--but are strongly opposed to such behavior, then a bit of persepective is needed.
When perfection is the only acceptable standard then pretty much anything can be made to look bad.

Or to look at it another way---if a stright white male was claiming discrimnation/bashing would the arguement then be that such discrimination is really pretty rare and that most people don't do so and that most stright white males face no such discrimanation?

Besides, as I also mentoned such anti Islamic "discrimination" is largely a political boogyman, arguably a relative of "lawfare."

There is also an argument that such ire over people fearing Islam is misplaced---the blame should be on the people bringing shame to Islam with their horrific acts of terror--not on the people whom justifiably fear them.

Seriously, you ever read the stuff people like Kalid Yasin are saying in public? Stuff is hate speech, yet few people hear about it and fewer still seem to care.
Should people in the USA and Great Briton etc be worried when report after report tells us that large numbers of Muslims not only have favorable attitudes toward terrorists but would support terrorism against the West? That large numbers of Muslims support the violent overthrow of the Govs and the establishment of Shiria law?
In terms of percentage its a small number--in terms of actual people its a lot.

But again, the "real" problem here is held out to be a small number of white bigots whom don't wish to wait upon Muslims........not somebody murdering his own kids because they don't wish to follow Shiria...but somebody--a paid actor in this case---that does not wish to wait upon a Muslim.
That some Muslim cab drivers will not pick up blind people because their seeing eye dogs are viewed as unclean is not discrimination
That Muslims clerks in some store will not wait upon a customer with pork products is somehow not discrimination.
If people wish to take a stand against discrimination then then they should be applauded for doing so.........but they should be taking a stand against discrimination in all its forms and wherever it rises its ugle head....wherever and whomever.....not just when and where it fits the narrative.

"Nothing wrong with identfying real, nasty prejudice"

It is when they are IMO litterally manufacturing it, the guy invented and scripted a story, hired professional actors to read lines and "ad lib" a pre-planed story line----in my view this is no more "real" than Annie Get Your Gun.

Nobody is saying that you should not report bad news---quite the reverse--I'm saying you should do so--I just think people need to do better in the accuracy department.

"Sorry nope, there was little "clear difference" when it comes to mental/emotional damage."

You may continue to believe that interrogation at Gitmo is no worse than coming across a staged act of verbal prejudice if it suits you. You'll have little company, I wager.

"As I mention, repeatadly , discrimination is unacceptable, however there is a serious and substantive difference between systemic discrimantion and a minority of people being bigots---you'll pretty much always have a minority of bigoted idiots about/over something."

That's right. If they refused service to a white person or a Christian or a male I'm absolutely sure that people in the store would have applauded. riiiight.

"But when most people--even in the street theater, are not such bigots--but are strongly opposed to such behavior, then a bit of persepective is needed. When perfection is the only acceptable standard then pretty much anything can be made to look bad."

I'll make a second wager that most viewers of that program would find running into a significant fraction of crazies like that muslim lady did FAR from perfection.

"Or to look at it another way---if a stright white male was claiming discrimnation/bashing would the arguement then be that such discrimination is really pretty rare and that most people don't do so and that most stright white males face no such discrimanation?"

I think that would generally BE the reaction because that would generally BE the reality, with the possible exception of victims to "affirmative action," for which there is a healthy debate and widespread knowledge of the concern. IF Quinones were to find that a large fraction of people with reactions were anti white racist, then sure, that would be just as newsworthy. Perhaps more since it would be unexpected.

"There is also an argument that such ire over people fearing Islam is misplaced---the blame should be on the people bringing shame to Islam with their horrific acts of terror--not on the people whom justifiably fear them."

Yep, that argument is the prejudice one, that I can treat all Mexicans like they're lazy and blacks like they're criminals and muslims like their terrorists or the [group of choice] because of the [pick your stereotype] because some are. That is... yep, the prejudice argument. There it is.

"Should people in the USA and Great Briton etc be worried when report after report tells us that large numbers of Muslims not only have favorable attitudes toward terrorists but would support terrorism against the West?"

Yes and unrelated. You've yet to make an argument as to why a reporter should cover all sides of a topic every time he or she reports a story. You thrust appears to be that there's a horrible lack of appreciation for the antiWest wishes of some muslims, or at least that Quinones should have gone into them (because we all know the Islamic world hates us, right? Not news, right?). Well, follow your logic and write outraged letters to newscasters when they mention US death counts in the war without reporting estimated civilizan casulaties. Doncha know that more of them have died so you have to mention it EVERY time you do a story on Iraq?

"But again, the "real" problem here is held out to be a small number of white bigots whom don't wish to wait upon Muslims........not somebody murdering his own kids because they don't wish to follow Shiria...but somebody--a paid actor in this case---that does not wish to wait upon a Muslim."

Yes, you're right, reporters should only report the one most serious crime related to the entire Islamic civilization. We all know that if they cover one aspect of a story it indicates they think the entire rest of it is totally unimportant.

"That some Muslim cab drivers will not pick up blind people because their seeing eye dogs are viewed as unclean is not discrimination
That Muslims clerks in some store will not wait upon a customer with pork products is somehow not discrimination."

Now you've entered the realm of total fantasy. Who ever said that muslims are free to discriminate while they ought to be free of discrimination themselves??? No one at all, at least, not anyone on this forum, and not Quinones. Here's a quarter; go call someone who cares! You have a limitless capacity for making up problems where none exist.

"If people wish to take a stand against discrimination then then they should be applauded for doing so.........but they should be taking a stand against discrimination in all its forms and wherever it rises its ugle head....wherever and whomever.....not just when and where it fits the narrative."

And again. Total fantasy. A segment can't mention or solve all the world's ills in ten minutes or less and no one has ever claimed it could.

"It is [wrong] when they are IMO litterally manufacturing [prejudice]."

The event was provoked. The prejudice was real. Obviously.

"Nobody is saying that you should not report bad news---quite the reverse--I'm saying you should do so--I just think people need to do better in the accuracy department."

Ok, it's just that he was forthcoming about the results. Or would you like to tell us what part he concealed?

Anyway dude, you've reached that nonsensical babbling just to argue stage. The only legit point you've raised is that getting put through the experiment could be stressful and it was therefore unethical, and yet you managed to bungle that point by equating (not even comparing, equating!) the scenario to torture at Gitmo. Har har. Here's an acronym for my future use:

Never said it was "worse" IJ--just pointing out that people that were so upset at hardend killers being stressed mentally/emotionly seem strangely silent in the face of joe averge people, just going about their lives being subjected to such mental/emotional stress......you'd think that people so personally involved with "human dignity" would be equally outraged.

"So if they resfused to service a white person, or a Christian etc"

So what is the argument here IJ, that nobody ever discriminates against whites or Christians??
Or its ok to discriminates against whites and Christains?
Or that it happens so rarely that it does not matter?

Does not address the central point----if anything short of perfection is 100% bad then only perfect is acceptable---I say since by far most the people stood up for the actor then there should--at the very least---be some hope here---you however continue to paint a less than perfect repsonse as the nadir of evil....I simply disagree with that position.

"stright, white male"

The very fact that you refer to anti white, anti stright, anti Christian discrimnation as "unexpected" is proof of my point---anything that does not fit the narrative is "unexpected."

"Sterotypes"

Nope, not even close to what said---once again you have replaced what I actually said with something you wish to pontificate about.

"Unrelated"

Nope, not in the slighest---John Q's whole piece was inventing a siutation of intolerence where little to none actually exsisted while pointedly ignoring many situations were such intolerence is alive and kicking...the story of course here is the same old Lefty trope of the USA is bad and evil while anything else is ignored.

"Realm of total fantasy"

Why..because John Q.....expose on tolerance only covers one side and does not so much as mention real cases of actual discrimination instead of inventing one?
The only "fantasy" here are the paid actors of John Q and his "play."

1-Sloppy science--so IMO you can't claim the results have any validity....again...another reason why actual studies have very specific methodology and rules...if you can't or won't follow them...then you can't claim any validity to your results.

Seriously dude--if you conducted your research in such a fashion--hired actors to play to a scripted result--they would laugh you out of your profession......esp when even such a sloppy design resulted in 2-3xs as many negative outcomes as expected.

"Provoke"--interesting word...if I purposely set up a situation to "provoke" you into violence---would that really prove you to be violent--or just that under controlled circumstances you can be "provoked" into violence? Would it be resonable to conclude that because I invent a situation, script an event, hire actors to play roles---specfically designed to "provoke" you into violence.....that gay men from Boston are by nature violent? Of course notThere is a serious difference and failure to recognize it is a serious error.

2-Even so the actual results are that most people--2x-3xs more people not only are not "prejudiced" but are passionatly defensive of a muslim they feel is being done wrong.
Ergo, even by such a sloppy project, most people are not only tolerent----they are willing to step up to protect even people the play casts as the enemy.

But since that does not fit the narrative or your ideology for that matter.........we are still having this discussion.

"Would it be resonable to conclude that because I invent a situation, script an event, hire actors to play roles---specfically designed to "provoke" you into violence.....that gay men from Boston are by nature violent?"

No. But Quinones didn't set out to provoke anti-muslim responses. Even if he were interested in finding them, he set out to provoke responses, or nonresponses, and he tallied and reported the results. He didn't persuade people to act a certain way. Many reacted in completely opposite ways--some were silent, some outraged; some were for the discrimination, others against. That wasn't because of the acting. That was because of their beliefs and values dictating their response to the acting.

Analogy. When a police officer offers you child porn and you buy it, that's a crime. You're guilty. When that police officer asks you and you refuse, and he cajoles you, makes multiple offers, sends you freebies, and eventually you cave, that's entrapment, because without all the cajoling you wouldn't have committed the crime--the police made a crime occur which you ordinarily weren't predisposed to commit.

People reacted with their free will to a situation and revealed whether they were in favor of discrimination or equality with their responses. Period.

Further, you missed a major point--or you're a sketchy debater. In your question, you ask whether my response would show whether gay men from Boston were intrinsically violent. That's one heck of a nonsequitor... gay men from Boston don't follow my orders and all my reaction would show is what my reaction was (also, I'm not from Boston). Either you are creating a straw man here, or you've got a prejudice problem yourself and believe that groups move and act as one.

"The very fact that you refer to anti white, anti stright, anti Christian discrimnation as "unexpected" is proof of my point---anything that does not fit the narrative is "unexpected.""

No, dude. Those forms of discrimination are, in fact, not just in anyone's opinion, definitely, verifiably less common. We all know this the same way we know that traffic tends to move forward when the lights are green. Get a grip. When forms of discrimination are less common, we expect to see them less. That's basically saying the same thing--the reality is these things are less common, we expect reality, we expect fewer of these things. There's no conspiracy here. There doesn't need to be a narrative. That's just how it is. There are fewer Bentleys than Ford F-150's out there too so the Bentley on my street is unexpected. That's just common sense.

It's why the local news reports Brad Pitt working a booth at the farmer's market and not anyone else. If you've got a problem with that, you've got a problem with news in general. But that's your business.

But its still---to use your term--"provoked".....just like in my example, if I scripted a event, hired actors, set up a situation for the specific intention of "provoking" you into violence....would you accept the rational that you were violently unstable already--I just crafted and opportunity to show it?
And would you further accept your reaction to be a valid extention to all gay men in Boston..or the nation for that matter?

In addition, if that is to be the aruement, then (hat tip to Reggi ) wouldn't it be argueable that if the cops had set up a similer siutation for other reasons that it would roundly be cast as entrapment.
You know it would.

"people reacted with their free will"

True, but its disingenious not to note--as John Q also failed to highlight, that most people by factor of 2-3xs times, were passionaly defenders of the actorAs such its not so much an example of "intolerence" as it is tolerence.

And again, the notion of ones "own free will" in an fake, scripted situation with paid actors specifically designed to lead to a specific reaction...IMO kinda strains credibilty of "ones own free will."

"less common"

Probably, but this is kinda my point:

A-If its "less common" does it make it make is less of problem...you seem to think so if it deals with white, Christain, stright males. I tend to disagree, I am opposed to disrimination as a whole--not just for select groups.

B-Springboarding off your whole "less common" statement--since even according to the street play--discrimination against Muslims is far "less common" than people standing up for them, you should have no problems here.

"Bentleys and Fords.."

Nope, not really, the narrtive in this case is that essentially that the USA is bad, racist nation---a conclusion that John Q little street play did not support--quite the opposite in fact..since it did not fit the narrative we have to argue about it.

To apply your own example in context---that there are fewer Bentleys is not news---that someone tried to trade her Bentley for a Ford 150 and 2-3xs more people violently refused to do would be news.......but you can bet the Bentely folks would not want to report it.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum